I move amendment No. 21:
In page 50, line 23, to delete “household notifies the authority of” and substitute “authority identifies”.
Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014: Report Stage (Resumed)
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 50, line 27, after “period” to insert “not less than 2 months”.
Should a local authority be unable to inspect a housing assistance payment property before agreeing a tenancy, it will be required to do so not less than two months after the agreement. Rental accommodation standards have dropped significantly over time. Dublin City Council inspections of accommodation found that well over 90% of inner city flats failed to reach basic standards. HAP should not support landlords who are renting substandard accommodation. It might not always be possible to inspect prior to agreeing a tenancy but it should be done as soon as possible. Two months is a fair timescale for that.
The purpose of prescribing the appropriate period in regulation as opposed to primary legislation is to allow, if needed for flexibility, an opportunity to change the period set if it becomes impractical. I am not against the idea of setting a timescale but it is more practical to put it into regulations because it is then easier to change if required. While I accept the principle of the Deputy’s proposal is to ensure minimum disruption or confusion for the household concerned, this must be balanced against the practicality for the housing authority. The period that will be prescribed under this section will be set in consultation with housing authorities and can be the subject of review once the scheme is operational to ensure the correct balance has been struck between consideration of the HAP recipient and the housing authority’s practical requirements. Prescribing the period as suggested by the Deputy would also make it more difficult to follow through on the outcome of any review for the period set.
I am not against the amendment's principle but it would be more practical to deal with it through regulation. We will have a trial period with the first seven local authorities and we want to learn from this. This is why I do not want to put it into the legislation.
I understand what the Minister of State has said, but our experience of dealing with landlords is that these issues tend to drag on and we seem to wait indefinitely for places to be inspected and approved. We saw what happened in the inner city with regard to standards. In the surveys conducted the standards were very low. We need to be more precise about how long we should allow. From this point of view I will press the amendment.
I have spoken to Kildare County Council about a number of elements of this and I understand it can take up to eight months for an inspection to take place. I do not dispute that a reasonable amount of time should be made available, but there should be a proviso that it is as early as possible. Will environmental health officers be available to conduct the inspections if the number of people envisaged by the Minister of State sign up for HAP? I must say I doubt the number will materialise but this is another matter. Staffing will be an issue.
The rental accommodation scheme, RAS, had quite rigorous housing assessment and included matters one would expect, such as having a fire blanket and attending to any small amount of dampness before a house entered the scheme. In this case people will already be in the houses. The legislation provides that payment can continue and if the property fails the people will have to find alternative accommodation. This will be one of the biggest problems. In an environment where we have a shortage of housing supply people who have settled in a house which does not meet the standards will have to go on the trail to find alternative accommodation. This and the staffing ratio are significant issues and I would like to hear what the Minister of State has to say on them.
Deputy Murphy has raised the issue of staffing on a number of occasions and we are certainly aware of it. We want to ensure people are not held up and can get into accommodation. We are speaking about people on rent supplement at present. I acknowledge the inspection system is not as good as it should be. In the system in Dublin, to which Deputy Ellis referred, there was a particularly targeted inspection in a particular part of the city and the reason so many of the accommodation units failed was because it was targeted to an area with a need for inspection to ensure standards were correct. We need to improve constantly the situation with regard to standards and inspections and ensure everybody, no matter what type of housing they are in, is in accommodation suitable to their needs. We are trying to be practical and learn from the trial period with the seven local authorities which will be the first into HAP. We will examine in particular the capacity of local authorities and their ability to carry out these inspections. We will examine all of this as part of the trial period.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 51, line 7, to delete "qualified household" and substitute "authority concerned".
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 51, line 8, after "dwelling" to insert "for the qualified household concerned".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 51, line 21, to delete "qualified household" and substitute "authority concerned".
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 51, line 22, after "dwelling" to insert "for the qualified household concerned".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 52, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"(c) proof that any other dwellings under the ownership of said landlord which are occupied by a private tenant or other household within Housing Assistance Scheme have their tenancy registered with the Residential Tenancies Board.".
The amendment requires that landlords taking part, or hoping to take part, in HAP must prove that the tenancy in any other rental property they have owned has been registered with the Private Residential Tenancies Board. It is fair to say all properties should be registered with the PRTB and it certainly should be the case when a local authority is dealing with a landlord. There should be standards. The amendment also states the PRTB should be notified of prospective HAP tenants, and if the landlord is unregistered and seeking to register the tenancies at the time he or she should be considered for the HAP scheme. It is a simple request to include the amendment because it will give the PRTB powers to deal with this issue. We need to strengthen it.
I have no problem with the principle of what Deputy Ellis is trying to do, but it replicates a provision under section 134 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, which requires the landlord of a dwelling to apply to the PRTB to register the tenancy of any dwelling. It is the statutory function of the PRTB under section 144 of the Act to ensure tenancies in the private rented sector are properly registered. Because HAP tenancies will be governed by the Residential Tenancies Act these requirements will also apply to HAP tenancies. Rather than replicate an existing provision, under section 55 I have provided for a specific provision for the exchange of information between housing authorities and the PRTB as a named specified person under the section for the purpose of enabling both to carry out their statutory functions. In this context I expect housing authorities to provide periodically to the PRTB a list of properties in respect of which HAP payments are being made so it can ensure these tenancies are appropriately registered and allow it fulfil its statutory function where the tenancies have not been registered. There has already been some improvement in data sharing between the Department of Social Protection and the PRTB under the current system, but the intention is that under section 55 data sharing will happen between the PRTB and the local authority concerned. While I agree with what Deputy Ellis is trying to achieve it already exists.
I am conscious that while one property owned by a landlord may be considered for HAP that landlord may have other properties which are not registered.
It is important to have consistency with regard to whatever landlord is there and that he or she is not operating differently elsewhere. That is the purpose of this amendment, which seeks to include the provision that "proof that any other dwellings under the ownership of said landlord which are occupied by a private tenant or other household within Housing Assistance Scheme have their tenancy registered with the Residential Tenancies Board". It is reasonable to make this request because so doing will cut out a lot of the messing that has been evident in the past whereby some landlords have had other properties and have operated them differently. I believe this provision might stop this.
Again, while I understand what the Deputy is attempting to achieve, under the residential tenancies legislation there is a legal requirement to register all properties that a landlord would be registering. Consequently, landlords have this legal requirement and data sharing now is getting rid of what the Deputy described as the messing, that is, when landlords do not register. It is through data sharing that the Government will be able to achieve this objective.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 52, line 38, to delete “qualified household” and substitute “authority”.
In respect of this amendment-----
The Deputy may not discuss this amendment, which already has been discussed with amendment No. 20.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 30 to 32, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 54, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(e) The Minister shall review the maximum amount of rent referred to in paragraph (b) every three months in each municipal district as defined under Part 3A of the Local Government Act 2001 (as amended), and, where evidence compiled indicates that less than 10 per cent of available rental accommodation units may be accessed by an individual or a family receiving a payment under this Part, shall initiate a review of the effectiveness of the present maximum amount of rent for that area.”.
While there will not always be a shortage of supply, this definitely is the case at present, which if anything, demonstrates the need for this provision. Essentially, the legislation limits the amount from the Exchequer on an annual basis and a dangerous lack of flexibility in this regard is evident at present. This provision seeks a much more flexible arrangement whereby the local authorities will consider the limits every three months and in the case of less than 10% of available rental accommodation being accessible, there must be intervention or a relaxation of the rent caps. I do not know whether the Minister of State does this but I find myself accessing daft.ie three or four times a week to ascertain whether anything is available for individuals within the rent caps and invariably, I find there is not. I understand this legislation pertains to the housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme and not the rent supplement scheme but it is being governed by the same type of caps. Consequently, one can expect the same situation will arise. One then is informed there will be a review, which will be undertaken every 18 months. However, that is not all that helpful to someone who has a problem now and is at risk of becoming, or in many cases has become, homeless.
This amendment attempts to introduce a level of flexibility and in this context, I looked at the Labour Party's local election manifesto which states: "We will seek the urgent return [of] flexibility at ... local level in terms of rent caps to tackle displacement and allow discretion to be applied by Community Welfare Officers." The Minister for Social Protection, who is a member of the Labour Party, has responsibility in this regard and this is in that party's manifesto. All I seek is for such flexibility to be applied to the legislation, which would be in keeping with the Labour Party view according to this manifesto. I believe this must be done if one is to avoid the extremely rigid application of something that evidently is posing so many problems at present.
One issue is that the State will continue to have a substantial proportion of the rented properties, estimated at approximately 33%, whether through HAP or through long-term rent supplement. However, the main focus of any rental limit review process must be to ensure that pricing of maximum rental limits does not distort the market, while at the same time providing opportunities for tenants to acquire accommodation. Its purpose is to get that balance right. Due care must be taken that pricing be established by natural supply and demand conditions, as opposed to by reference to the State's intervention, in order to avoid setting maximum rental limits that could force families, especially those on low incomes, into competing with pricing floors they cannot afford. The current policy for maximum rental limits within the rent supplement scheme is an 18 month cycle. The timing of 18 months represents a balance between the rental arrangements of tenants, as tenancy agreements normally are for approximately one year, and the need to ensure sufficient reviews to keep apace of the market. A shorter period to review maximum rental limits, for example, quarterly, would place a significant degree of ongoing pressure to change rental agreements mid-agreement on tenants and landlords alike. The cycle of how long the agreement lasts is part of the consideration.
In addition, rents fall as well as rise - this might be a lovely dream at this point in time - but in declining markets, tenants would be forced to consider alternative accommodation as landlords continued to seek previous rents agreed. It must be remembered that rents can increase as well as decrease and reviewing maximum rental limits on a quarterly basis would not allow the market any time to adjust naturally to the imposition of new limits, therefore distorting the natural market rent level. I suppose this is a judgment call in terms of not intervening too often and not having what are now called caps affect or distort the market unduly - if there still are caps in respect of HAP - and to take account of the fact that were they to be reviewed regularly, this would happen in a time of declining rents, as well as a time of increasing rents.
The fact that 33% of rental properties involve people who basically should have social housing is a scandal in its own right. I accept there is a legacy issue in this regard but it appears to me as though 18 months is extremely rigid. The difficulty is not with people who are in houses but affects those who cannot get them and cannot get a landlord to lease a house to them, even for a short duration. This is the upshot of the problem. The fact that Members are talking about the market really is what I have been saying - I hope the Minister of State has heard me - that people are being abandoned to the market, as that will be the only option available to them. It is not a home but is somebody else's property. Has a business case been conducted on the amount of money that will expended by the State on rental properties into the foreseeable future and on what would be the return, were there to be a major programme of building, even in the context of mixed development in which there were properties for sale as well as homes to let?
I do not think the State's or taxpayers' involvement will be sustainable. It is a big social experiment and in the absence of major housing construction which would provide alternatives, it has big question marks over it.
I agree with much of what the Deputy argues in that I do not want an escalation to continue because the proportion of people who rent in the private sector has been escalating over a good number of years and the number of people on rent support is a very large part of the total number of people who rent in the private sector. Nobody of the Deputy's political persuasion or mine would see this as an ideal situation by any means. I have said it many times that we do not have the cash at the moment to provide housing in any large numbers through the voluntary sector or the local authorities. Therefore, we have to modify the current system in the best way possible in the interests of tenants. That is the reason we are moving it into the social housing space and to the local authorities and introducing other reforms such as getting rid of the poverty traps. There is a business case being made for this area. We want to learn from the seven local authorities that will be moving into HAP initially. A considerable amount of work has been done on the business case. The Deputy is correct that ideally, if we could supply social housing in a different way rather than using private landlords, we would want to do so but we cannot do so in any great numbers at present. We have to operate within the context of the current situation. We have to use this system as best as possible in the interests of tenants.
I support the amendment because the 18-month review is too long and it does not allow for an intervention from the State in a developing crisis of supply of rented accommodation now or over the next two to three years. As the Minister said, it is hoped this Government will be able to turn the situation around. I do not believe it is doing it fast enough and where there is a will, there is a way. We have a crisis, the Government's programme is not working and nor is its strategy because there will still be thousands of people depending on private rented accommodation who have no access to social housing. If the Minister of State believes that time is needed in order to allow for a review or for market prices to rise or fall, there should be a mechanism in the legislation to allow the State to intervene at any time to deal with a developing crisis, and to intervene before 18 months to deal with the price of rented accommodation.
Another area where the State can intervene is in the area of rent control and we are considering this option. The PRTB legislation provides for a tenancy agreement or a lease with a landlord whereby rents can only increase by market rates, but market rents are rising very fast. I refer to the option of a European type of system which could be of assistance and it is being examined.
I asked the Minister of State a parliamentary question about the PRTB study which will be published at the end of this month. Like the Minister of State, I would prefer rent controls because the sector could be more adequately served. We need a housing policy that guarantees everyone access to a home and not a case of whether the markets can build so many houses or apartments over five years or whether the State can find the money to build housing. I would welcome a discussion on rent controls so that they could be introduced quite quickly.
The point about rent control is very interesting. If we were to move to the continental model whereby so many people live indefinitely in rented accommodation, we could only make that move if we had a situation in which there was some form of effective rent control. I wonder if the Minister of State has had any engagement with the Minister for Finance on that particular matter because I can imagine he would be more than a little agitated by virtue of any proposal coming forward to effect rent control because of the inevitable consequences this would have in the buy-to-let market which is experiencing significant problems at present. However, it is an issue that needs to be considered.
The principle set out in Deputy Murphy's amendment is very valid and I support it. Perhaps it is a little prescriptive in setting out three months as a period of time. I refer to the Minister of State's actions in including the 18 month period in the Bill but also her actions in recent times in addressing the inordinate problems within the Dublin local authority areas. Unfortunately, the problems with the caps are spreading out into County Kildare and many areas around Dublin. This issue of review is a pertinent one. When one further considers that the consequences of not having a review for the people who are affected currently is homelessness or the threat of homelessness, then manifestly there is a need to have a greater degree of flexibility, as set out by Deputy Murphy, than what is envisaged in the Minister of State's legislation. For that reason, I appeal to the Minister of State to look at the principles involved and to see what can be done.
I have no problem with the principles but I think the period of three months suggested in the amendment is very short for all sorts of reasons as I have described. The issue of flexibility was launched today in the four Dublin regional authorities. It is not in place in all regions but we need to move towards having it in place in the rest of the country. Having flexibility in cases where people are at risk of homelessness seems to me to be a very sensible approach to the whole issue of rent caps. It does not make sense to have people in hotels instead of being able to stay where they are and have the flexibility of the rent cap. The problem with raising or lowering rent caps, as the case may be, on a three-monthly basis is that one is influencing the market - I am sorry to call it a market but that is what it is essentially - in so far as there is a danger that landlords will simply increase the prices as they are unlikely to decrease the prices. Even where there is an agreement between the landlord and tenant for a year, for example, a three-monthly review would interfere with that process.
Does Deputy Murphy wish to make a further contribution?
The Minister of State did not say if she was willing to consider a period of more than three months and whether an amendment can be tabled in the Seanad. Does she plan to continue with the legislation as it stands?
I can always look at these issues when the Bill goes before the Seanad. However, I do not envisage accepting anything like three months because in my view that is too short a time period.
I will press the amendment.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 63.
Tá
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Collins, Joan.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Coppinger, Ruth.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Stephen S.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Halligan, John.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O'Brien, Jonathan.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ross, Shane.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Wallace, Mick.
Níl
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Collins, Áine.
- Conlan, Seán.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Conway, Ciara.
- Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Deering, Pat.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Anne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- Lyons, John.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McFadden, Gabrielle.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Maloney, Eamonn.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Eoghan.
- Nash, Gerald.
- Neville, Dan.
- Nolan, Derek.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Mahony, John.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Phelan, Ann.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Walsh, Brian.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Catherine Murphy and Seán Ó Fearghaíl; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 54, line 30, after "offers" to insert "not less than 3".
The reason I tabled this amendment is because it is not specific how many times the Minister proposes in section 45, where it states, "a prescribed number of reasonable offers". This varies between local authorities. Some local authorities state one offer and if one refuses the next offer, one waits a year or whatever. Other local authorities have different procedures.
An offer could be made to someone in a place to which they cannot or do not want to go. It may be for reasons of anti-social behaviour. There may be a myriad of reasons they do not want to go to a specific area.
The purpose of this amendment is to give a little flexibility to tenants if they refuse. Some parents have their children in schools in different areas and the next minute they are told they must move a long distance away. It is not fair. The offers must be reasonable and there also must be a certain number of them, of course within reason. In this regard, there is a need for greater standardisation because the process is so chaotic throughout the country.
There are a variety of processes rather than tenants understanding what the rules might be and fairness. For example, a young woman I am dealing with who is homeless had a baby about a month ago. She cannot register the baby because she has no address. She has a four year old in school in north Kildare. It was suggested to her that there was rented accommodation in Monasterevin, which would be an hour away, that she should go and see which would be suitable to meet her housing need. That young woman has family support around her in north Kildare. Is such either-or practice the kind we will see? If so, there will be difficulties.
It is different if it is local authority stock as opposed to what is available in the market. One could see tenants settling for very short durations, for example, for a year in one place, and moving children around the place constantly. There must be some thought for the likely longer-term impact, particularly on children or those who are vulnerable and require the support of family and friends around them.
Even before the introduction of the housing assistance payment scheme, there was often a significant problem where tenants sought transfers or were made offers where those offers were felt to be completely unworkable from the point of view of the tenant but were deemed to be acceptable by the local authority, particularly where matters to do with proximity to school for children or proximity to supports, such as family or local community, were an issue but were not considered by the local authority as reasonable grounds to refuse an offer when they should have been. In my experience, it is quite common that tenants would be offered accommodation which, from their point of view, is in far-flung areas away out of the area in which they are normally used to living, where their children go to school or where they have support networks.
That problem, if it existed previously, will be massively compounded by what the Minister of State is talking about with the housing assistance programme. It is already starting to happen. Where landlords who are in arrangements with the local authority through the HAP scheme decide, as they undoubtedly will on a regular basis, to pull out of those arrangements for whatever reason, the local authority will be overwhelmed with tenants to whom it has an obligation but who it simply has no means to house. The local authorities do not have the local authority housing stock and they do not have other private landlords with whom they will be able to house tenants. This will increase the pressure on the local authorities to push tenants into accepting accommodation which they should not have to accept and then if the tenants do not accept it, they will be penalised. What Deputy Ellis proposes is the minimum safeguard that tenants could expect in order that they have some flexibility and room to manoeuvre to refuse certain offers if they have reasonable grounds for doing so.
I wish to clarify that a reasonable offer from a housing authority must be in the householder's area of choice and must meet their housing needs, so it should be in their area of choice.
It does not say that.
That is what is prescribed.
Those are big areas.
That is the first thing. Secondly, under the current regulations it is two refusals, not one. I know the Deputy is proposing three but it currently provides for two refusals and it is in the householder's area of choice. The purpose of prescribing the appropriate period in regulations, as opposed to primary legislation, is to allow for flexibility to change should that become appropriate. It can be changed under the current system, which is by way of regulation, rather than putting it into primary legislation. I favour that because it allows us to change it if necessary. As I said, at the moment it is two refusals and it has to meet the household's needs.
I hear what the Minister of State is saying but she has not agreed to one amendment in this process. It is reasonable to standardise the system. Having two offers is inconsistent because people are being offered places in areas where others have refused them. On occasion, the same house is being offered four or five times, which does not make sense. Some local authorities are taking a different view from that of the Minister of State and, unfortunately, they are not being reasonable about it. I wish they were but the problem is that they are not. We are seeking to have a standard which can be abided by throughout the country. In my experience, it is not true to say that every local authority is abiding by the current system and that there are two offers.
The Minister of State says that people have to be housed in their area of choice, but the problem is that local authority areas are often very big. The Dún Laoghaire-Dalkey list covers a very large area. One end of it could be far away from where children go to school at the other end. While the local authority might say it is in a person's area of choice, in reality it is not practical as it involves significant upheaval for a family with children. If children are attending school far away or if elderly relatives are unwell, those are additional problems. It is reasonable to request three offers to give people room for manoeuvre. The Minister of State says she is open to considering some of the points being made here, so the issue of proximity to school should be explicitly included in any criteria.
There has to be a reasonable proximity to a school where children are involved. In addition, there should be access to family support networks for elderly, disabled or ill people. Those criteria should be written into the legislation so that a local authority would have to consider them in deciding what is a reasonable offer.
Housing departments will sometimes take such matters into consideration but they are under massive pressure to offer something, however inappropriate. If those criteria were written into the Bill, it would provide some protection to tenants.
To clarify, the Minister of State is talking about an area of choice within a particular local authority region.
When people apply to Cork City Council for housing they are given three areas or communities in which to specify their preference. If a person is offered a house within those communities and turns it down, that is one refusal. There are various reasons people might turn down an offer of housing. Their circumstances might change. For instance, a spouse or partner may have suffered ill health in the past six to 12 months. I have come across a case where somebody had a heart attack and turned down a housing offer because the property was on a hill with no bus service. They may return to the city council and change their area of preference but that is still deemed as one refusal on their record. When another offer is made they are left in a dilemma either to accept or have no hope of being rehoused. Two offers is therefore very limited. On the second offer, regardless of what type of property is being offered, the person must choose either to accept it or, in the case of Cork City Council, become ineligible for consideration for housing for up to two years. Under the old scheme, the welfare officer was also informed if a person was in receipt of rent allowance.
There are major issues involved. In Cork City Council the refusal rate for housing is running at 40%. People are not being offered suitable accommodation because the local authority does not have any such accommodation to meet people's needs. Half of Cork City Council's housing list comprises single people, men and women, who rarely receive offers of housing. When they do, it usually in substandard accommodation even by local authority standards. They have no choice but to refuse those offers. It is not because they do want to be housed but because the area is not suitable to meet their needs.
I support Deputy Ellis. Sometimes what somebody considers to be a reasonable offer may not be reasonable. A person may be offered a house on top of a hill but may have to refuse it due to ill health. There is nothing to stop the local authority offering the same person a second house in the same hill-top estate. I have known that to happen. It would be considered a person's second refusal and their rent allowance will be cut off.
I have come across examples where a person's ex-husband or partner may live a few doors away from where they are offered a house. If they appeal against the refusal, it is considered to be a valid refusal. The definition of "reasonable offer" comes down to the individual. It should be standardised because it is not always as it seems. Much of the time, people may refuse houses for valid reasons, but officials sitting behind desks do not see it that way.
A number of issues have been raised but some of them are matters for local authorities rather than for me to define.
That is the problem. It depends on the local authority.
For example, my Department does not tell local authorities what they should describe as areas of choice. My Department does not tell Cork City Council that it has to have these particular three areas from which a choice must be made. That is not defined by my Department, it is decided at local level. We are seeking more local autonomy in many respects, so that certainly needs to be addressed at local rather than national level. If 40% of houses offered in Cork are refused, then three refusals is not enough. One would need five or six refusals to deal with that. Alternatively, one will have to change the areas of choice or have better estate management. There are many such matters that concern local authorities, as I see it.
Would the Deputy pick three and put it into law, or leave it with regulation whereby one can vary it? However, there certainly is a challenge to local authorities as regards the discussion we have just had. They do make their scheme of letting priorities from time to time.
There are opportunities at local level to address all of these issues but prescribing in law the exact number of refusals does not appear to me to be the way to resolve the legitimate issues that Deputies have identified. The house must, for example, meet the applicant's housing needs. That argument will have to be made at local authority level if the house does not suit the applicant's housing needs. I am not accepting the amendment because it is too rigid in providing for three refusals which cannot be varied by way of regulation. The issues raised by the Deputies are ones that local authorities need to address.
Surely the Minister of State needs to instruct local authorities. I ask her to define "reasonable offer". That definition will vary among the various local authorities and housing officers. I am sure what is defined as a reasonable offer in Deputy Boyd Barrett's local authority is different from how it is defined by Cork City Council. It is grand to say it is up to local authorities to define areas of choice but surely it is the responsibility of the Minister of State with responsibility for housing to define what is a reasonable offer or a reasonable refusal. There is no uniformity across local authorities in that regard. Between Cork County Council and Cork City Council there is a difference in what is deemed as a valid refusal. A valid refusal in one local authority is not deemed valid in the neighbouring authority. That issue needs to be addressed by the Minister of State.
If legislation is to have any relevance, it should at least attempt to set out the minimum best practice. That is what Deputy Ellis has done with his amendment, which provides for not less than three refusals. The Minister of State has accepted that circumstances arise in which certain local authorities are giving less than three options. What is wrong with amending the legislation to include "not less than three"?
Like other speakers, I am growing concerned by the Minister of State's refusal to accept any amendment. One wonders whether we are engaged in a process of futility. A strong case has been made and the amendment stands on its merits. We are referring to reasonable offers. We all share the experiences that previous speakers have outlined. There are also unreasonable refusals and we need to take action in that regard. I recall a case in which a lady told me she was not taking up the offer of a local authority house because the garden was not big enough for her trampoline. While we have to stand up in such cases to say that the response is not on, Deputy Ellis made a reasonable proposal and I appeal to the Minister of State to have regard for it.
I will press the amendment because I do not accept the Minister of State's argument that the local authorities are behaving or using good judgment. We need to put some sort of standard in place. A standard of three refusals across the board will not prevent flexibility. Currently, when the third refusal occurs, an individual will wait one year on the list. That is the penalty currently imposed in some, but not all, local authorities.
It is two years in Cork.
It is one year in Dublin and two years in Cork. We are all over the place in this regard. We should allow three reasonable offers. There is no point in offering a place in which anti-social behaviour has occurred to beat the band. Dozens of people have refused offers in such a context. We need to use our common sense to develop a standardised approach.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 40; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Niall.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Coppinger, Ruth.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Stephen S.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Halligan, John.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O'Brien, Jonathan.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ross, Shane.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Wallace, Mick.
Níl
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Collins, Áine.
- Conlan, Seán.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Conway, Ciara.
- Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Deering, Pat.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Anne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- Lyons, John.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McFadden, Gabrielle.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Maloney, Eamonn.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Eoghan.
- Nash, Gerald.
- Neville, Dan.
- Nolan, Derek.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Mahony, John.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Phelan, Ann.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Walsh, Brian.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dessie Ellis and Sandra McLellan; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 62, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
“52. (1) The Minister shall, six months after the coming into operation of this Part, cause a review to be conducted which shall assess the effectiveness of the measures contained in this Part under the following categories:
(a) the net effect on the numbers of families waiting for accommodation to be provided to them by a housing authority in each local authority area;
(b) the net number of individuals and families who are on the emergency accommodation waiting lists in their respective areas;
(c) the number of local authority staff required by each housing authority for the optimal administration of the measures under this Part;
(d) the funding required from the Central Fund or the local government fund for the optimal delivery of the measures under this Part.
(2) The Minister shall compile the data and analysis undertaken under subsection (1) into a report which shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and transmitted to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht, or its successor Committee.”.
This is quite a big experiment. I completely take the point that the finances available to the State are limited but there is scope to leverage funding from other sources, including pensions and the European Investment Bank. Some of that could be at arm's length from local authorities and some of it may take in housing associations. In its absence all that will be available is the housing assistance payment, HAP, and reliance on the market to deliver housing for those on waiting lists.
I know the Minister of State plans to do a pilot with seven local authorities. The issue arises then of how to monitor its effectiveness, for example, how many are in emergency accommodation and the funds available. This amendment is intended to give an opportunity for us to come back here, perhaps annually, to monitor this social experiment. It is the biggest change in social housing perhaps since the foundation of the State. Increasing numbers people will qualify to go on housing lists because the more their incomes are driven down, through taxes and charges, the less they will be able to purchase houses, even in favourable circumstances where mortgages are available for those on low incomes. It will be essential to monitor this experiment to ensure it is not allowed continue if it is seen to fail.
We have not seen the results of the Limerick city pilot. I know that one of the seven other pilots will involve a large city authority which should give some sense of the difference between large and small authorities. There should be ongoing monitoring. The Government is undertaking large regeneration schemes where there were failures in housing policy, but we should not allow this to continue if it is seen not to be the solution to the housing problem. I do not believe it will solve the problem.
Some of us believe that this Bill will turn a housing disaster into a complete catastrophe for social housing and homelessness. The Minister of State obviously disputes that and believes it is workable. I do not see how it can be workable, when all the evidence points in the opposite direction, to move towards reliance on private landlords who are jacking up rents and running away from arrangements with local authorities and who have made it clear they have no interest in housing people on low incomes. It will compound a disastrous situation in ways that will become manifest very quickly.
I hope the real review will come from people on the housing lists clamouring at politicians’ clinics, outside local authority offices and outside this building, demanding an immediate reversal of this policy. Time will tell quite quickly. The very least the Government could do is accept this amendment from those of us who are deeply alarmed by what it is doing, and agree to review this scheme every few months, monitor it closely and let us have all the details about what is happening in the different categories of housing need in order that we can assess what is going on. It will be very telling and damning. The Minister of State would obviously argue otherwise, but if she genuinely believes in it, she should make the commitment to regular reviews and to giving us all the detail necessary to make a proper assessment of whether this thing is workable. I hope the Government will at least accept that proposal because this is so serious.
It is beyond draining to have to deal with the day-to-day crises families face and the utter failure of the State to deal with their housing needs. We think this scheme will make that problem worse. At the very least will the Minister of State commit to regular detailed reviews and to providing all the information we will need to assess it?
Today we met officials from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Department of Social Protection who confirmed in no uncertain terms that anyone who avails of HAP will be removed from the housing list. The Minister of State hesitated to say this but the officials confirmed it today. This will take many people off the housing list if they avail of HAP. The same happened when the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, was introduced in 2011. Anyone who joined the scheme was taken off the housing list.
There will be uproar. The figure of almost 90,000 on the housing waiting list will be massaged. This is not adequate housing. It is unstable and the type of accommodation and its location will not be fit for purpose. In many cases that will be out of people’s control. The other problem is that they will have to source it themselves, whereas the local authorities should have some powers. What will happen in the Departments, where there is a recruitment embargo? Will that be lifted? It will cost money to move people about. We need to review the figures after six months and monitor this on an ongoing basis to see how many are taken off the homeless list and how many off the housing list. That is the point of Deputy Murphy’s amendment, to give us a picture before the scheme goes out of control. It is very important to include a provision to monitor this scheme.
I support this amendment because we do not know the impact of HAP on housing provision and whether landlords will enter the scheme. We do not know how the inspection within eight months by an environmental officer will tally out. It is important to check the scheme. The Minister of State says it is a short-term initiative to give people a home, but so were RAS and rent allowance. They were not permanent or long-term and very few of them provided the type of housing that was needed.
Debate adjourned.